PERSONAL LAW WAKF

Balraj Puri on Uniform Civil Code

Muslim personal law can be faulted on many grounds but it does not affect any other community. Why do Hindus feel so aggrieved over it? It is argued that it discriminates as it permits Muslims to marry four wives while Hindus cannot do so. If at all it is a privilege, it is at the cost of Muslim women. A graver apprehension, widely whispered and occasionally publicly expressed by many Hindus, is that polygamy the only known provision of the Muslim law will enable the Muslims to outnumber Hindus. The first premise of the apprehension that legal provision of polygamy leads to its practice is not substantiated by statistical studies. According to the report of the National Commission on Status of Woman, polygamy is actually less among Muslims than in other communities.

The second premise that polygamy would increase Muslim population faster is logically fallacious. For as number of child-bearing women is constant, many men may not be able to get wives if some of them marry more than one. A large number of unmarried men in any community in no way increases its procreative potential. Evidently four men with four wives are likely to produce more children than one man with four wives. Thus, polygamy slows rather than hastens the rate of growth of population.

Muslim personal law does need reform. Their present law is not in conformity with the best interests of the community, the requirements of modern times and the spirit of the Quran and the Constitution. (But reform is possible) only after the issues of uniformity and reform are delinked and their legitimate right to preserve their identity and have their own personal law is conceded. This right is inherent in our commitment to a plural federal and democratic polity.

At a time when constitutional, judicial and political authorities are applying their minds in the advanced countries to devise means for the defense of their diversities, voices of uniformity from the political right are threatening the basic character of the Indian polity. The highest judicial authority in its non-judicial role, should (not) lend its support to such a threat without realising the widely recognised contradiction between unity and uniformity.

(Source: The Janata, 29 October, 1995)

It's not the common Muslims but the Mullabs and Maulvis who oppose a Uniform Civil Code.

-Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Haryana: Mosque at Narnaul Vacated

In February, 1996, a mosque in Mohalla Dakotan at Narhaul was vacated from the illegal occupation of one Shri Mohan Singh and restored to its original use. The mosque remained under adverse possession for a long time. After the vacation for the first time the local Muslims offered Namaaz on February 9, 1996, (after) the Board had reached a compromise with the illegal occupant.

In 1984 the Board filed a suit for possession against Mohan Singh and his license was cancelled. In 1989, the case was decreed in favor of the Board in the lower court. Subsequently, the occupant went in appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Narnaul. His appeal was. dismissed on July 28, 1994. Then (the occupant) went for a Second Appeal in the High Court Chandigarh. It was also dismissed on 19.1.95 en limine. On the basis of the earlier judgement of the lower court, Narnaul, the Board filed execution petition on 24.5.1995. After the filing of the execution petition by the Board, the illegal occupant had no way out but to compromise with the Board.

Since the mosque was in a dilapidated condition, the Board has undertaken its renovation. During 1994-95, as many as 14 mosques at different places were got vacated by the Board.